Reading/Writing Thoughts - AKA Ranting
So, I recently read an interesting article by Patricia C. Wrede (author of Dealing With Dragons) about the trouble with sequels, which you can read here. The portion that interests me the most is this...
The problem with sequels is that the writing and publishing process gives readers too much time to think.
Let me unpack that a little.
(...)
Speculation is fun; I engage in it myself quite frequently. The trouble is that it is exceedingly easy to become overly fond of one's speculations, especially if one happens to have a lively crowd of Internet companions who like the same sorts of characterization and plot twists. It's frighteningly easy to convince oneself that one has a pipeline into the author's mind, and that the sequel will be a better, shinier, spiffier version of whatever plot-and-character developments one's particular group of readers thinks is most likely.
Inevitably, when this happens, the result is that the actual Book 2 (or 3, or whatever) arrives, it's a disappointment to any and everyone who had constructed an alternate vision of who'd live and who'd die, who'd end up in a romance and who wouldn't, what the important plot-points were and which things were totally extraneous. Either the readers have guessed right and worked themselves up so far that no writer, living or dead, could possibly find words shiny and spiffy enough to live up to their mental construct, or (more often) the writer is going in a completely different direction and the readers are outraged that their lovingly-rationalized vision isn't going to play out the way they thought.
That is an interesting theory, I must say. Personally, I do think a reader has an expectation of a sequel and their ideal is not likely to match reality. The longer you have to wait, the more time you have to sub-consciously build up a perfect image that may never be realized.
However, let's first remind ourselves that there are, indeed, many bad sequels out there. Sequels that merely tell the first story over again, send the characters in bad OOC directions, contain plot concepts and twists that aren't as original or as engaging as the previous book.
An example of this is Eragon vs. Eldest by Christopher Paolini. The first book held my attention with it's intriguing characters and engaging plot. The second one bored me to tears with overdone descriptions, constant scene flipping, and a predictable plot. I read the second one right after the first, so there was no chance of me building up any expectations, nonetheless, my complete objective opinion was that the sequel was poor in comparison to the first book. (Apologizes to Inheritance fans, and I will give him a break and say he was younger than me when he wrote it... O_O)
An example in TV is Veronica Mars S1 vs. S2. Though S2 was by no means poor, the overall season arc was clumsy in comparison to the flawless, tight arc of S1. Too many red-herrings, too many angles thrown in merely to make the plot last a few more episodes. Again, I had the DVDs of all three season, so no expectations simmering in my hind brain.
However, there are many excellent book sequels and television seasons out there that are strangely rejected by once loyal fans. Wrede's theory seems the most likely here. I noticed this after the release of A Conspiracy of Kings by Megan Whalen Turner. I had some of those feelings myself. Four years is a long enough time to write your own version of the book in your head, and though the book was nothing like I'd expected, I still loved it when I took a deep breath and reminded myself that the book was not going to fulfill every wish I'd held in my heart for four years. That was an impossible expectation.
So, thoughts? Ever found yourself disliking something, simply because it wasn't what you'd expected?
And for part two...
Which you may skip, because it's another one of my rants about female characters. :)
Have you ever noticed that we expect different responses from female characters in a relationship? Particularly the leading lady? If there is an interloper in the ship, we expect the male character to be jealous (at least a little), or he doesn't care about his relationship, right? If the female character is jealous (even if she gets over it), we tend to call her a silly Mary Sue who needs to deal with her security issues already. XD *is mean*
If the male character is very devoted to his leading lady and would sail seas and climb mountains for her, we point out how much he must care about her, right? If the female character feels the same way, we call her a Mary Sue who needs to stop being a sap and get a life. *head-desk*
Sadly, my annoyingly good memory is reminding me that I've done this once or twice myself. And I'm not talking about Bella Swan (god no...). I draw the devotion line at jumping off cliffs for no apparent reason, but I'm sad to see some female characters raked over the coals and called a Mary Sue for no greater crime than being strongly devoted to their love interest. Rose Tyler from Doctor Who immediately comes to mind, because she did certain things like leave her family behind (which is something you do when you grow up anyhow).
Meanwhile male characters, such as Terence from The Squire's Tales by Gerald Morris, can act in ways that speak of great devotion to his leading lady, his king, and his country and be recognized positively for it.
Now, I don't mean to call anyone an anti-feminist or something equally ridiculous, or say that audiences never have expectations of male characters that are unfair. I merely have noticed an opinion that's all too easy to jump to, and I think is related to the significant amount of Mary Sues and sad female characters fans of TV and books tend to be exposed to over the years.
It's just somewhat disconcerting to me that I and seemingly other people tend to expect a higher level of emotional maturity and even emotional perfection from female characters, especially when compared to our expectations of male characters. Even to the point of allowing female characters no time whatsoever in the story to work through their character flaws and any emotional immaturity they may have, though we automatically do this in real life
Now, if the character never grows out of a serious character flaw, I can understand your issue with them. However, a character must start with flaws or there is no direction in which they can grow, yes? :)
Yes, you can now breath! I am done! Please, leave me some rants in response, lovely F-list!
*pokes Beth in particular* ;)
The problem with sequels is that the writing and publishing process gives readers too much time to think.
Let me unpack that a little.
(...)
Speculation is fun; I engage in it myself quite frequently. The trouble is that it is exceedingly easy to become overly fond of one's speculations, especially if one happens to have a lively crowd of Internet companions who like the same sorts of characterization and plot twists. It's frighteningly easy to convince oneself that one has a pipeline into the author's mind, and that the sequel will be a better, shinier, spiffier version of whatever plot-and-character developments one's particular group of readers thinks is most likely.
Inevitably, when this happens, the result is that the actual Book 2 (or 3, or whatever) arrives, it's a disappointment to any and everyone who had constructed an alternate vision of who'd live and who'd die, who'd end up in a romance and who wouldn't, what the important plot-points were and which things were totally extraneous. Either the readers have guessed right and worked themselves up so far that no writer, living or dead, could possibly find words shiny and spiffy enough to live up to their mental construct, or (more often) the writer is going in a completely different direction and the readers are outraged that their lovingly-rationalized vision isn't going to play out the way they thought.
That is an interesting theory, I must say. Personally, I do think a reader has an expectation of a sequel and their ideal is not likely to match reality. The longer you have to wait, the more time you have to sub-consciously build up a perfect image that may never be realized.
However, let's first remind ourselves that there are, indeed, many bad sequels out there. Sequels that merely tell the first story over again, send the characters in bad OOC directions, contain plot concepts and twists that aren't as original or as engaging as the previous book.
An example of this is Eragon vs. Eldest by Christopher Paolini. The first book held my attention with it's intriguing characters and engaging plot. The second one bored me to tears with overdone descriptions, constant scene flipping, and a predictable plot. I read the second one right after the first, so there was no chance of me building up any expectations, nonetheless, my complete objective opinion was that the sequel was poor in comparison to the first book. (Apologizes to Inheritance fans, and I will give him a break and say he was younger than me when he wrote it... O_O)
An example in TV is Veronica Mars S1 vs. S2. Though S2 was by no means poor, the overall season arc was clumsy in comparison to the flawless, tight arc of S1. Too many red-herrings, too many angles thrown in merely to make the plot last a few more episodes. Again, I had the DVDs of all three season, so no expectations simmering in my hind brain.
However, there are many excellent book sequels and television seasons out there that are strangely rejected by once loyal fans. Wrede's theory seems the most likely here. I noticed this after the release of A Conspiracy of Kings by Megan Whalen Turner. I had some of those feelings myself. Four years is a long enough time to write your own version of the book in your head, and though the book was nothing like I'd expected, I still loved it when I took a deep breath and reminded myself that the book was not going to fulfill every wish I'd held in my heart for four years. That was an impossible expectation.
So, thoughts? Ever found yourself disliking something, simply because it wasn't what you'd expected?
And for part two...
Which you may skip, because it's another one of my rants about female characters. :)
Have you ever noticed that we expect different responses from female characters in a relationship? Particularly the leading lady? If there is an interloper in the ship, we expect the male character to be jealous (at least a little), or he doesn't care about his relationship, right? If the female character is jealous (even if she gets over it), we tend to call her a silly Mary Sue who needs to deal with her security issues already. XD *is mean*
If the male character is very devoted to his leading lady and would sail seas and climb mountains for her, we point out how much he must care about her, right? If the female character feels the same way, we call her a Mary Sue who needs to stop being a sap and get a life. *head-desk*
Sadly, my annoyingly good memory is reminding me that I've done this once or twice myself. And I'm not talking about Bella Swan (god no...). I draw the devotion line at jumping off cliffs for no apparent reason, but I'm sad to see some female characters raked over the coals and called a Mary Sue for no greater crime than being strongly devoted to their love interest. Rose Tyler from Doctor Who immediately comes to mind, because she did certain things like leave her family behind (which is something you do when you grow up anyhow).
Meanwhile male characters, such as Terence from The Squire's Tales by Gerald Morris, can act in ways that speak of great devotion to his leading lady, his king, and his country and be recognized positively for it.
Now, I don't mean to call anyone an anti-feminist or something equally ridiculous, or say that audiences never have expectations of male characters that are unfair. I merely have noticed an opinion that's all too easy to jump to, and I think is related to the significant amount of Mary Sues and sad female characters fans of TV and books tend to be exposed to over the years.
It's just somewhat disconcerting to me that I and seemingly other people tend to expect a higher level of emotional maturity and even emotional perfection from female characters, especially when compared to our expectations of male characters. Even to the point of allowing female characters no time whatsoever in the story to work through their character flaws and any emotional immaturity they may have, though we automatically do this in real life
Now, if the character never grows out of a serious character flaw, I can understand your issue with them. However, a character must start with flaws or there is no direction in which they can grow, yes? :)
Yes, you can now breath! I am done! Please, leave me some rants in response, lovely F-list!
*pokes Beth in particular* ;)